Cities Fear Being Forced to Share Ocean Cleanup Costs : Lawsuit: Two companies that have been charged with dumping toxic chemicals are trying to draw South Bay municipalities into the case as defendants.

South Bay cities fear that they may have to help foot the bill for cleaning up marine habitat that was damaged when toxic pollutants were dumped in the ocean from the 1950s through the early ‘70s.

Last June, the federal government filed a lawsuit charging eight private companies with dumping highly toxic chemicals in the ocean, in most cases by way of sewer outfalls. Now at least two of those companies are trying to draw more than 100 municipalities--including all the cities in the South Bay--into the case as defendants.

The companies say cities should bear partial responsibility for the pollution because any toxic chemicals that reached ocean outfalls would have traveled through their sewer lines. City officials, fearing millions of dollars in legal liability and crippling attorneys’ fees, angrily disagree.

“Cities could be subject to substantial liability for merely owning sewer lines,” said Gordon Phillips, city attorney of Redondo Beach. “Even if there is no adjudication of responsibility, the mere cost of defending is so great that, fiscally, we’re at risk.”

Among companies named in the federal lawsuit are Montrose Chemical Corp. and its parent companies, Atkemix 37 Inc., Stauffer Management Co., ICI American Holdings and Chris-Craft Industries.

These companies are charged with the dumping into the ocean hundreds of tons of the pesticide DDT from the Montrose plant in Torrance--much of it through sewer outfalls operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

The suit also charges Westinghouse Electric Corp., Potlach Corp. and Simpson Paper Co. with dumping polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, into the sewer system. The government has pledged to use money from settlements or damage awards stemming from the case to help restore marine resources damaged by the pollution.

At least two of the defendants--Simpson Paper and Potlach--have been notifying cities of their intent to file claims to draw them into the suit as defendants. The two companies have filed the notices with more than 100 cities from Oxnard to Irvine, including all the cities in the South Bay.

Attorneys for the companies say they also plan to file so-called third party cross-claims against other companies in the Los Angeles Basin that may have dumped pollutants into sewage networks that terminate in ocean outfalls.

“If there are (environmental) damages there, we know there are a lot of people responsible, not just the handful of defendants,” Ralph Davisson, the general counsel for Potlach, said Friday. “We feel this is a societal problem that should be addressed generally. . . . That’s why we are bringing in as many people as we can.”

The tactic alarms local officials. Said Torrance Mayor Katy Geissert: “Cities are very concerned about this. . . . The figures could be very, very substantial.”

Such concerns pose problems for a $12-million legal settlement that the federal government announced last June with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Originally one of the defendants in the pollution suit, the agency operates outfalls through which much of the DDT and PCB pollution was pumped into the ocean.

The settlement, not yet approved by the court, is important because it gives the federal government access to the Sanitation Districts’ files documenting dumping by plants belonging to the companies being sued.

But cities that control the sanitation agency, suddenly faced with becoming third-party defendants in the pollution suit, want the settlement changed so it offers them legal protection. On Jan. 30, the Sanitation Districts’ governing board called on the agency’s staff to consider the question.

“It was the concern of the cities that the consent decree as presently structured did not include third party protection,” said Jim Stall, assistant chief engineer of the Sanitation Districts. “They want the Sanitation Districts’ staff to explore how that can be (done). The goal is to have a settlement that would include the cities.”

An attorney for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lead agency in the suit, said Friday that resolution of the case will be slowed as a result of the new doubts about the settlement.

“It certainly delays our getting on with the cleanup of the environment,” said the attorney, Mark Eames. Eames declined to com ment on whether the government will fashion a new settlement that includes the cities. But he hinted that it will try.

“The municipalities were more in the position of being conduits; they didn’t put the stuff in the system,” Eames said. “We clearly are sympathetic to the position of the Sanitation Districts and the cities. . . . If we can craft a settlement that is in the public interest then we’ll pursue that.”

Attorneys for the defendants vow they will fight to have the cities included as defendants. Said Roger Carrick, an attorney representing Simpson Paper: “If the government is going to sue eight private parties, those parties are obligated to look for others who are potentially responsible.”

Carrick said his company’s goal is to force a legal settlement in which environmental cleanup costs will be paid by a wide range of corporations and local governments.

“It would be the urban equivalent of a barn raising,” Carrick said. “If we have a problem off the coast we all have contributed to, then it makes sense for all of us to become part of the solution.”